That just means we may be mistakenly believing some people are 'dead' when they are actually in a 'not dead' state. It is a direct result of the definition of death as a permanent state coupled with the hypothetically possible restoration of life functions in some cases.
But anyways, back to the story at hand, unless they are using a non standard definition of death, this situation seems like insurance fraud.
Except, you aren't actually dead. Death is the permanent cessation of life functions, if you have been revived, you aren't dead and you were at no time dead.
The existence of DRM on the content is dictated by the publishers, not the hardware. If you want to vote with your wallet, you are going to have to do it by chosing to only buy e-books that don't have DRM (say, from Baen)
Yah, that looks like a normal domain table along with comments as to the meanings of field values... Since the ballot design is part of the database, I would be surprised not to see those.
Of course, with 800mb to go through, it's possible something less normal is in there.
Even if the flu vaccine does nothing to reduce mortality directly, it would still be a societal benefit if it, on average, delays infection by a few days as it would spread out the infections over time giving the medical infrastructure a better chance of not being overwhelmed during a pandemic.
Additionally, retrospective studies (as opposed to randomized trials), really suck at identifying the magnitude of conflating factors (but can be good in indicating that there ARE conflating factors).
The kernal dev mailing list and a few perl lists are the only forum level interaction I have with FOSS outside my workplace. As I don't recall seeing any sexist comments (caveat, I don't read everything) in this lists, and I do recall seeing sexist comments in other forums I participate in, unrelated to FOSS it seemed odd to be condemning me, as a member of the FOSS community when as far as I can tell, from my own interactions, the FOSS community may as well be ungendered.
Are those instances occurring at a rate greater than that in society as a whole? Are they occurring at a rater greater than equivalent alternatives? If they are at equivelent rates, then those forums are, as expected, subsets of society as a whole, with no selection bias along this dimension.
If a single post, tainting a single thread on a forum is sufficient to taint the entire forum, then all forums, on all topics are equally tainted and this discussion is useless, as at that point everyone is equally sexist and racist with regards to all groups.
I say once again, condemn individual behavior when that individual behavior deserves condemnation, but unless the goal is to alienate everyone, do not condemn communities when they are doing substantially better than the norm, especially when the problem at hand (or even the dimension within which it resides) isn't a topic of the community.
Nope, but your father is an individual actor, not a group. Always condemn the individual actors for their personal behavior when that behavior is deserving of condemnation. But, to bootstrap those instances, in aggregate to indicate a problem with the group as a whole (as opposed to a simple indication that, in this dimension, the group is a random subset of society as a whole), you would need to show that the prevalence of the problem among the group exceeds the prevalence in society as a whole. Per message rates, if collected systematically from different communities, could be a suitable proxy for comparing prevalence, but it breaks down if your sample size is minuscule (in your example, 1). Fortunately for us, society as a whole and the FOSS community don't have minuscule sample sizes.
Comments per year per developer? I would guess that the mode is likely 0, median may also be 0 (that is, the majority of contributors are silent in actual FOSS forums).
I don't see how the metric of sexist comments per female contributor per year is in anyway meaningful. It seems like, in order to specify that FOSS has a sexism problem (as opposed to having a few members, who may be generally blacklisted, that have a sexism problem), you would need to show that the prevalence of sexism was higher than in society. If the (un-sourced, and AFAICT, unsupported) rates of 0.1% in FOSS and 2% in society are accurate, then it would actually show that FOSS had a prevalence of sexist content around 1/20th of society as a whole.
This should in no way be construed as a limitation on the condemnation of individual sexist remarks, comments and/or materials, merely as an indication that ire at characterizing FOSS as a community as having a problem may be legitimate (IFF the numbers are anywhere near those thrown around in the comments of this article, something I do not claim and have no means of supporting).
The behavior demonstrated in FOSS development is code, anything else is a waste of bandwidth, and should be condemned for it. If that anything else is also sexist, it should be condemned for both.
Where are you getting the idea that he accsessed the library from an Amazon IP?
That may be where the information was sent, but nothing in the FOIA response indicates that the requests were coming from his EC2 account.
It is likely that the script was running on library computers, making requests using credentials provided to those computers and forwarding the responses to a server running on EC2. A trivial PERL 1 liner (though likely actually longer, since it survived for multiple weeks).
Physical gender is not binary, it isn't even a spectrum, it's a high dimensional construct that gets weirder, more complex (and more interesting) the more you look at it. Trying to force individuals into manufactured ideas of binary gender has done a lot of harm to a lot of people. The only meaningful definition of what gender someone is is the gender they believe they are, and that belief can not be objectively wrong.
Light, aka, the photon, is the force carrier for electromagnetism, so it's either electromagnetism or gravity due to energy density. Gravity can effectively be ignored at the scales they are talking about, so it must be electromagnatism. This is confirmed if you RTFA and see that it's caused by light in dielectric materials.
It only seems that way due to parts of the argument being assumed, specifically: That it will cost the same or more to get back to where we are now.
Given NASA's bureaucracy, this is a given without significant reforms. Given that previous reforms do not seem to have helped much, it is almost certainly a given WITH significant reforms.
This is only a good argument if we want to get back to where we are now, and the cost of maintaing this position is less than getting back here, or if we wish to go somewhere that will be cheaper if we are starting from this point rather than from scratch.
I personally believe it's a bad move to deorbit anything that we could otherwise attach to some central node (like the ISS) and eventually use as spare parts for in space tinkering. Of course, the shuttle itself is a bit of a nightmare, much better to have an SSTO with a minimal reentry vehicle so you leave most of your mass up at the node.
There are a lot of Madoff's in EVE, but at the same time, most of the 'scams from the beginning' are identified before any isk goes into them (this doesn't STOP isk from going into them, some people just don't listen). As there are no (internal) laws, everything is about trust, reputation, collateral and audits. Setting something up that will pass muster with the marketplace crowd is a lot of work, and general requires mechanisms being set up that limit investor risk.
Loans are EBANK's bread and butter. The loans are mostly collateralized (there are in game mechanisms for locking resources so they can still be used by a third party but can't be moved) or guaranteed by a trusted party (effectively using their reputation as collateral).
Added to the compartmentalized capital management they have, and no one person can kill the bank, take 200bn? Sure, but that isn't death, just a really big chunk of profit...
EVE moves faster than real life, being a game, getting a basic income is easy through a variety of means (mining, piracy, manufacturing, bounties and, in this case trade). Proper management of capital can trivially have returns of 10% a month with almost no work or 100% in a few days on the market with a lot of work.
This is coupled with high risk, but it's in game risk. Even wiped back to 0 you can recover back to 'normal player' levels radiatively quickly. If you took the kind of risks that are normal in game in real life, you would lose people their life's savings.
I just pulled an paperback from 2003 off of my shelf, it has the following ads in the back: Mercedes Lackey (19 distinct books) Eric Flint (15 distinct books) Classic Masters of Science Fiction Back in print! (15 distinct books) A page for 1632 and 1633 Mary Brown (5 distinct books) Amazons 'r Us (The Chicks Series, 5 distinct books) Harry Turtledove (7 distinct books) Doranna Durgin's Fantasy (6 distinct books) Andre Norton (5 distinct books) Baen's Bar!
So, at least for fiction it seems to be normal to have ads for the other books of the authors (this was 'The Shadow of The Lion' by Mercedes Lackey, Eric Flint nad David Freer), other authors from the same publisher and some additional resources from the publisher.
If for example, Amazon were to insert ads for other HP Lovecraft books into the back of an HP Lovecraft book along with books inspired by the Mythos, this seems reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
That just means we may be mistakenly believing some people are 'dead' when they are actually in a 'not dead' state. It is a direct result of the definition of death as a permanent state coupled with the hypothetically possible restoration of life functions in some cases.
But anyways, back to the story at hand, unless they are using a non standard definition of death, this situation seems like insurance fraud.
Except, you aren't actually dead. Death is the permanent cessation of life functions, if you have been revived, you aren't dead and you were at no time dead.
It is single player. What about having multiple characters of the same class in your party makes you think it isn't?
Duplo?
Persistent wikified irc with integrated permissions management?
That, right there, is a killer app.
The existence of DRM on the content is dictated by the publishers, not the hardware. If you want to vote with your wallet, you are going to have to do it by chosing to only buy e-books that don't have DRM (say, from Baen)
Yah, that looks like a normal domain table along with comments as to the meanings of field values... Since the ballot design is part of the database, I would be surprised not to see those.
Of course, with 800mb to go through, it's possible something less normal is in there.
Even if the flu vaccine does nothing to reduce mortality directly, it would still be a societal benefit if it, on average, delays infection by a few days as it would spread out the infections over time giving the medical infrastructure a better chance of not being overwhelmed during a pandemic.
Additionally, retrospective studies (as opposed to randomized trials), really suck at identifying the magnitude of conflating factors (but can be good in indicating that there ARE conflating factors).
The kernal dev mailing list and a few perl lists are the only forum level interaction I have with FOSS outside my workplace. As I don't recall seeing any sexist comments (caveat, I don't read everything) in this lists, and I do recall seeing sexist comments in other forums I participate in, unrelated to FOSS it seemed odd to be condemning me, as a member of the FOSS community when as far as I can tell, from my own interactions, the FOSS community may as well be ungendered.
Are those instances occurring at a rate greater than that in society as a whole? Are they occurring at a rater greater than equivalent alternatives? If they are at equivelent rates, then those forums are, as expected, subsets of society as a whole, with no selection bias along this dimension.
If a single post, tainting a single thread on a forum is sufficient to taint the entire forum, then all forums, on all topics are equally tainted and this discussion is useless, as at that point everyone is equally sexist and racist with regards to all groups.
I say once again, condemn individual behavior when that individual behavior deserves condemnation, but unless the goal is to alienate everyone, do not condemn communities when they are doing substantially better than the norm, especially when the problem at hand (or even the dimension within which it resides) isn't a topic of the community.
Nope, but your father is an individual actor, not a group. Always condemn the individual actors for their personal behavior when that behavior is deserving of condemnation. But, to bootstrap those instances, in aggregate to indicate a problem with the group as a whole (as opposed to a simple indication that, in this dimension, the group is a random subset of society as a whole), you would need to show that the prevalence of the problem among the group exceeds the prevalence in society as a whole. Per message rates, if collected systematically from different communities, could be a suitable proxy for comparing prevalence, but it breaks down if your sample size is minuscule (in your example, 1). Fortunately for us, society as a whole and the FOSS community don't have minuscule sample sizes.
Comments per year per developer? I would guess that the mode is likely 0, median may also be 0 (that is, the majority of contributors are silent in actual FOSS forums).
I don't see how the metric of sexist comments per female contributor per year is in anyway meaningful. It seems like, in order to specify that FOSS has a sexism problem (as opposed to having a few members, who may be generally blacklisted, that have a sexism problem), you would need to show that the prevalence of sexism was higher than in society. If the (un-sourced, and AFAICT, unsupported) rates of 0.1% in FOSS and 2% in society are accurate, then it would actually show that FOSS had a prevalence of sexist content around 1/20th of society as a whole.
This should in no way be construed as a limitation on the condemnation of individual sexist remarks, comments and/or materials, merely as an indication that ire at characterizing FOSS as a community as having a problem may be legitimate (IFF the numbers are anywhere near those thrown around in the comments of this article, something I do not claim and have no means of supporting).
The behavior demonstrated in FOSS development is code, anything else is a waste of bandwidth, and should be condemned for it. If that anything else is also sexist, it should be condemned for both.
Slander of Title? Yes, Civil tort as opposed to criminal, but it's a start.
Difference in perspectives
If I'm running a script on Computer A, that pulls from PACER and pushes to Computer B, am I accessing PACER from A or from B?
From an action initiation perspective, A. Same goes for credentials.
From an information flow perspective, B is the end point.
Where are you getting the idea that he accsessed the library from an Amazon IP?
That may be where the information was sent, but nothing in the FOIA response indicates that the requests were coming from his EC2 account.
It is likely that the script was running on library computers, making requests using credentials provided to those computers and forwarding the responses to a server running on EC2. A trivial PERL 1 liner (though likely actually longer, since it survived for multiple weeks).
So, what do you class people with AIS women as, men?
What do you class those with alternate chromosomal patterns as?
Physical gender is not binary, it isn't even a spectrum, it's a high dimensional construct that gets weirder, more complex (and more interesting) the more you look at it. Trying to force individuals into manufactured ideas of binary gender has done a lot of harm to a lot of people. The only meaningful definition of what gender someone is is the gender they believe they are, and that belief can not be objectively wrong.
In other words, it's a great idea for your next Arcology project, not so good for the new apartment block?
I can live with that.
Light, aka, the photon, is the force carrier for electromagnetism, so it's either electromagnetism or gravity due to energy density. Gravity can effectively be ignored at the scales they are talking about, so it must be electromagnatism. This is confirmed if you RTFA and see that it's caused by light in dielectric materials.
It only seems that way due to parts of the argument being assumed, specifically:
That it will cost the same or more to get back to where we are now.
Given NASA's bureaucracy, this is a given without significant reforms. Given that previous reforms do not seem to have helped much, it is almost certainly a given WITH significant reforms.
This is only a good argument if we want to get back to where we are now, and the cost of maintaing this position is less than getting back here, or if we wish to go somewhere that will be cheaper if we are starting from this point rather than from scratch.
I personally believe it's a bad move to deorbit anything that we could otherwise attach to some central node (like the ISS) and eventually use as spare parts for in space tinkering. Of course, the shuttle itself is a bit of a nightmare, much better to have an SSTO with a minimal reentry vehicle so you leave most of your mass up at the node.
Hopefully with exceptions made for the between chapters fictional ads you get in some science fiction? (Slant for instance)
There are a lot of Madoff's in EVE, but at the same time, most of the 'scams from the beginning' are identified before any isk goes into them (this doesn't STOP isk from going into them, some people just don't listen). As there are no (internal) laws, everything is about trust, reputation, collateral and audits. Setting something up that will pass muster with the marketplace crowd is a lot of work, and general requires mechanisms being set up that limit investor risk.
Loans are EBANK's bread and butter. The loans are mostly collateralized (there are in game mechanisms for locking resources so they can still be used by a third party but can't be moved) or guaranteed by a trusted party (effectively using their reputation as collateral).
Added to the compartmentalized capital management they have, and no one person can kill the bank, take 200bn? Sure, but that isn't death, just a really big chunk of profit...
EVE moves faster than real life, being a game, getting a basic income is easy through a variety of means (mining, piracy, manufacturing, bounties and, in this case trade). Proper management of capital can trivially have returns of 10% a month with almost no work or 100% in a few days on the market with a lot of work.
This is coupled with high risk, but it's in game risk. Even wiped back to 0 you can recover back to 'normal player' levels radiatively quickly. If you took the kind of risks that are normal in game in real life, you would lose people their life's savings.
I just pulled an paperback from 2003 off of my shelf, it has the following ads in the back:
Mercedes Lackey (19 distinct books)
Eric Flint (15 distinct books)
Classic Masters of Science Fiction Back in print! (15 distinct books)
A page for 1632 and 1633
Mary Brown (5 distinct books)
Amazons 'r Us (The Chicks Series, 5 distinct books)
Harry Turtledove (7 distinct books)
Doranna Durgin's Fantasy (6 distinct books)
Andre Norton (5 distinct books)
Baen's Bar!
So, at least for fiction it seems to be normal to have ads for the other books of the authors (this was 'The Shadow of The Lion' by Mercedes Lackey, Eric Flint nad David Freer), other authors from the same publisher and some additional resources from the publisher.
If for example, Amazon were to insert ads for other HP Lovecraft books into the back of an HP Lovecraft book along with books inspired by the Mythos, this seems reasonable.